[Frameworks] experimential film in the art world

[David Tetzlaff]

Great post Myron!!

Myron wrote:

> The film "commodity" would have to be dealt with in a way that even a great piece of photography does not require.

That's a valid point, but I wonder if it might cut both ways. That is, the cost of maintaining a film might initially be a hurdle for museums since they now hold film in low esteem. But if that 'art-world interest in all things cinematic' keeps rolling, the fragility of the text can actually add to its economic value as it establishes an auratic element. (I honestly don't know, but I'd guess the care required for those abstract expressionist works with sub-optimal pigments and substrate adds to their cache? Does it?)

> I am thinking that the very nature of film and the experience of it is somehow inherently outside of this commodity model and better kept within the "democratic" model, since it is all "reproduction" on one level or another.

But some reproductions are better than others, and at some point the difference matters. The premise I'm granting in this whole discussion is the FRAMEWORKS truism that there is something unique in a celluloid print of many works that is worth preserving and trotting out on occasion (which, BTW, I actually believe). And all the things I've observed in the last 20 years indicate that the circulation of celluloid prints cannot be sustained within a democratic model. The rental costs to much compared to the number of people who give a damn. Given the economy of information (circulation increases value) the film print gets caught in a vicious downward spiral -- if suitable digital reproductions are not available. Film projection becomes more difficult to do --> films available only as prints get shown less --> fewer people see and talk about the work --> the work recedes toward the background noise of the culture --> demand continues to decline.

> Most people know and learn first about art history from reproductions in books, and hopefully, are encouraged to see and experience as much work in the live form as possible, but let us not underestimate the reality and importance of these various forms of reproduction, which  may ultimately have to include digital technology for the  
> dissemination of the basic "information". Then hopefully one can ideally see a film or two at a museum somewhere. Meanwhile an awful lot can be experienced and learned from these other forms of reproduction.

Yeah, baby. Yeah!

> Currently there is hardly enough readily available digitally formatted material to get much of an overview of the whole scope of experimental/avant garde film.

Exactly!! (Roll on brother Myron!)

> Its all economic I guess. First from the struggling filmmakers who are trying to get some money  
> for all their efforts and sacrifices to the high cost of making good quality DVDs with a questionable market to justify the expense.  Which does make me wonder what the "numbers" are for Criterion's involvement in the Brakhage anothologies I and II. eg. how much did  it cost to produce, how much was made, etc. did the numbers really  
> work out, apparently so???? What is the potential then for the rest of the work in the overall genre?

OK, now this is really important. The Hollywood model isn't going to work for experimental film either. Nobody's going to make a significant sum of money distributing experimental DVDs at any price. I mean, I hope Criterion is in the black on the Brakhage disks, and I hope Su Freidrich is getting something back from her DVDs, but even small profits are likely to accrue only to a few 'stars' (just as with print rental income FWIW). But...

> Would such democratic availability then totally destroy the museum commodity model....  well maybe no,  
> books on Van Gogh just make the lines for the museum show just that much longer around the block.......

That's an Ed McMahon, "YESS!" (Can I get an Amen!)

This is why I said the museum model is way more workable for moving image work of celluloid 'original'. If you shoot in 1080P, the only difference between the 'original' and the 'reproduction' is the compression artifacting in the distribution copy, which is hardly enough to support art-object status. But if you can turn film-film into a reasonable facsimilie of an auratic art object, there's your source of income....

(DISCLAIMER: I don't know Jen Reeves, but I'm just plucking the first hypothetical that comes to mind, so in what follows I'm talking about an abstract 'Jen Reeves' not the actual person...)

Let's say 'Jen Reeves' made a DVD of 'Chronic' (with a Kinetta scan, of course ;-), and put an .iso of it on the web under a Creative Commons license, freely available for download and showing. LOTS of film and women's courses would quickly add it to their syllabi. Writing about the film, and 'Reeves' other work would multiply in publications both scholarly and hip/popular. 'Reeves' would receive economic benefit in the form of higher personal appearance fees and more frequent bookings. But, more importantly, that 'original' film print of 'Chronic' is now potentially worth a shitload more money, IFF it is the one and only 'true' version of 'Chronic.' And the NEXT film 'Reeves' makes, IFF it exists in a one and only true original, becomes the talk of the gallery world, a prized acquisition, a target for speculative investors... etc. etc. (BTW, for folks who forgot their high school math, IFF is the abbreviation for 'if and only if.')

Maybe I've got it wrong, and it wouldn't work that way. More likely, to go a little CulStuds on y'all, the place of film within the art-world and its economy would be 'a site of struggle,' and a lot of people would have to put a lot of effort and passion into making it happen, and there are no guarantees etc. etc. [insert multiple Stuart Hall references here]. But if it COULD happen that way, it looks like a win-win all around to me. The filmmakers get a piece of the art-world pie. The museums get a bigger pie and attractions for an expanded audience and/or new generations of patrons. The teachers, students and cinephiles get their cheap reproductions to study and think about and, oh yeah, totally change some of their freaking lives. The folks now spending their life energies keeping the co-ops afloat can go make films, (or get cushier jobs in the Film Curation biz...)

Good heavens. Have I just Panglossed all over FRAMEWORKS? If so, prick my bubble please.